1951-02-28

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Is it planned to extend the runways at Gander airport this year? If so, which runways are to be extended, and by how many feet?
2.	What material is to be used in the construction of the additions to the runways?
3.	Is it proposed to build a new terminal building at Gander airport this year? If so, where is it planned to locate such building?
4.	What is the total area to be made available for use by the various air line companies in the said terminal?
5.	How is it proposed to allocate the space to the various air lines for ticket counters, and general offices?
6.	What amount of traffic is anticipated?
7.	What public facilities are to be installed?
8.	Are the meteorological offices to be relocated?
9.	What is to be the expenditure for the proposed terminal?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	It is planned to extend one runway this year. The runway to be extended is still under study by engineers and technical engineers and technical officers.
2.	Plans call for the use of a hot asphaltic concrete surface on crushed gravel base.
3.	The over-all plan for the reconstruction of the Gander airport includes the construction of a new terminal building, but due to the cut-back in non-defence expenditures no construction will be undertaken this year.
4.	Before the final plans for the new building are drafted, all air line companies and others concerned will be requested to submit information as to their requirements.
5.	According to the need of each in relation to the space available.
6.	Approximately the same as last year, i.e., 20,000 aircraft movements (departure or arrival).
7.	Waiting rooms, wash rooms, restaurants, snack bar and facilities for customs, immigration and health.
8.	It is not expected that the meteorological offices will be relocated before the new terminal building is erected.
9.	Plans have not been developed to a stage where an estimate of cost can be made.


NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL ON MANPOWER
Mr. Pouliol:: 1.	Are any of the members of the national advisory council on manpower connected with any firm or company which was awarded government contracts directly or through subsidiary companies?
2.	If so, who are they?


Mr. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Mr. Rhys M. Sale, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Windsor, reports:
We have not at this time any war orders as such. We have supplied a few commercial type vehicles to the forces which is normal business and does not relate to any emergency. We are doing some experimental engineering and design work for Department of National Defence but have no orders for products of this design.
(b)	Mr. Albert Deschamps, Montreal, advises:
Albert Deschamps & Company, contracting engineers, Montreal, had a general contract to remodel the Ford hotel for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the work has been completed.
(c)	Mr. William Mainwaring, vice-president, British Columbia Electric Company, Vancouver, advises:
The B.C. Electric Company supplies light and power under provincial regulation and therefore would have no occasion to enter into any contract with the government, but it does supply electrical energy and gas to various government departments and also to companies which undoubtedly have contracts with the government. I feel sure Mr. Pouliot had in mind contracts for materials of one type or another and such would be entirely foreign to our business.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Has the province of Newfoundland requested the federal government to investigate the desirability of establishing one or more national harbours under the national harbours board?
2.	H so, what areas have been designated for the establishment of national harbours?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


DEFENCE CONTRACTS
Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	What companies received defence contracts in Saskatchewan during the first nine months of the past year, valued at $10,000 or more?
2.	What equipment or supplies were each of these contracts for?

Questions


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	(a) Army and Navy Department Store, Regina; (b) T. M. Ball Lumber Co. Limited, Saskatoon; (c) Builders Supply & Fuel Co. Limited, Saskatoon; (d) Harvey Lunam Construction Co. and Blondin Roofing Co., Regina; (e) Mackenzie & Thayer Ltd., Saskatoon; (f) Underwood & McLellan, Saskatoon; (g) Western Construction Co., Swift Current.
2.	(a) Beds; (b) coal; (c) coal; (d) repairs to roof of 16 ROD warehouse; (e) coal; (f) engineering investigation of sewage disposal system; (g) construction of a 6-target outdoor rifle range.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Higgins:: 1.	Have any requests been made for marine services, such as wharves, slipways and breakwaters, in the province of Newfoundland?
2.	If so (a) from whom; (b) on what dates; (c) for what repairs or replacements?


Mr. Cardiff:: 1.	How many firms handle the distribution of butter from the dairy board to the trade?
2.	How much butter has been imported into Canada from January, 1950, to date?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Brooks:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the federal government, exchanged during the past ten years between the international waterways commission, the provincial government of New Brunswick, the federal government and the government of the United States, concerning the inspection and the proposal for the development of hydroelectric power from Passamaquoddy bay, bay of Fundy.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, there is no
objection, to accepting this motion, but it would be with the reservation that permission will have to be obtained from the government of the United States and the government of New Brunswick.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, subject to the reservation stated by the parliamentary assistant.



ASSISTANT GRAIN COMMISSIONER, SASKATCHEWAN -TRAVELLING EXPENSES

Mr. Wright:: For a copy of each claim for travelling expenses, showing detailed amounts spent on transportation, hotels, meals and other items, submitted by Mr. A. G. MacLean, assistant commissioner, board of grain commissioners at Saskatoon, for the period from January 1, 1949, to January 31, 1951.



QUESTION AS TO FINAL PAYMENT ON FIVE-YEAR POOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Sinnoll (Springfield):: 'Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that he has returned to Canada, would he like to give the house the information he has obtained in Great Britain in respect to the wheat contract?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: I have not yet had an opportunity of making a report to the government with regard to the matters discussed in London. As soon as I have had that opportunity and any decisions have been reached, I shall seek an opportunity of making the results known to the house.


Mr. J. A. Ross (Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a similar question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In a press report of proceedings in the House of Commons in London yesterday Mr. Gaitskell is reported to have answered a question by stating that there will be no further payment on the United Kingdom-Canada wheat agreement, and that the matter was fully discussed and settled last summer with the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Arthur Ross: Could I have an answer from the minister as to what is the situation?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the house heard the question asked by the hon. member for Souris. In putting his question I would ask him not to quote from press reports. Would he put his question briefly?


James Arthur Ross: It is in reference to a question answered by Mr. Gaitskell in the House of Commons in London, to the effect that after a thorough discussion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member can put his question without quoting the report.


James Arthur Ross: Is it true, as reported yesterday, that the statement was made in the House of Commons that a final settlement on the wheat agreement was completed last summer between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the proper officials in London?


Mr. Howe:: Who is being asked the
question?


An hon. Member:: You.


James Arthur Ross: I directed the question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on three occasions. He and the responsible

ministers of the United Kingdom government are reported as having reached a final settlement last summer. I am asking a question as to that final settlement on behalf of the wheat board, which is under his department.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last summer is a long time ago, and I have really forgotten what happened. I shall be glad to look it up.


Mr. Coldwell:: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question? If there is in existence correspondence or documentary evidence dealing with the final settlement on the wheat agreement will both ministers produce it when making statements to the house?


James Garfield Gardiner: I was the minister who conducted the negotiations at the time the agreement was entered into. When a statement is made some time during the session, all matters which have any relationship to the decisions reached will be presented to the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce agree that any written evidence of that description will be presented?


An hon. Member:: He has forgotten.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Minister of Trade and Commerce has been away on a holiday and he needs a little time.


Major James William Coldwell: In connection with the
minister's statement last June.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have no statement to make at this time.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: May I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture? In view of the defects of the holiday memory of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, can the Minister of Agriculture tell us whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce settled these matters last summer?


Mr. St. Laurent:: Have not we had enough of these attempts to make political capital out of a very serious problem?


Mr. Graydon:: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that the best example of making political capital is to be found on his own side of the chamber?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I thank the hon. member for Peel for his suggestion. As usual, it is very helpful.


Gordon Graydon: You are playing to the grandstand.
Inquiries of the Ministry EMMA MOIR



EXPRESSIONS OF CONGRATULATIONS ON HER

[Stage Direction]
107th birthday
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Roberge (Stanstead):: On a question of privilege, I should like to point out that two weeks ago we celebrated in our county the 100th anniversary of the birthday of Mrs. James Parker, and today I should like to convey to Mrs. Emma Moir, of Beebe, Quebec, our congratulations and best wishes on her 107th birthday.


Mr. Abbott:: What a county!



CIVIL AVIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport, of which notice has been given. Has the government, or any department of government, established an approved course of training under which student pilots can qualify for commercial licences after 150 hours of flight time? If such a course has not been established, is the Department of Transport giving consideration to the matter?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: The
hon. member was good enough to give the department notice of his question, and therefore I am able to give him an answer. The answer to his first question is no. The answer to the second question is: Yes, the approval of a course of training for commercial pilots to meet international standards has been under review and has been subject to discussion with the Royal Canadian Flying Clubs Association and the Air Industries and Transport Association.


Mr. Speaker:: I allowed this question to be asked by the hon. member for Red Deer, but it seems to me that a question of this kind should be put on the order paper rather than asked on the orders of the day.


Frederick Davis Shaw: On a question of privilege, I took my lead from the brown bread question of two or three days ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to get into a controversy with hon. members. I agree with the hon. member that the question to which he refers should have been placed on the order paper.
764	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Industrial Relations



CIVIL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the unanimity of opinion which was indicated yesterday by the three parties in the Ontario legislature. When does the government intend to give a clarification of its policy on civil defence?
Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime
Minister): That is a matter of government policy. I did not attend the meeting yesterday of the Ontario legislature. The responsibility of the government is to this house, not to the provincial legislatures. This matter is under consideration, and as, soon as a determination has been made it will be announced first of all in this house.


Gordon Graydon: That is what we want.



AUDIBILITY OF DEBATE-QUESTION AS TO REPORT ON ACOUSTICS OF CHAMBER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. I have not given him notice but I do not think he needs it. In view of the investigations that have been made in regard to improving the acoustics of the House of Commons chamber I was wondering whether he had any progressive report to make, either today or tomorrow.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, may I very respectfully refer the question to Your Honour? I understand you will have a report to read to the house in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Public Works has referred the question to me. I can say that I shall have a report on acoustics to present to the house in the very near future.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Knowles for the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the principle underlying this measure is already the unwritten law of Canada with respect to labour relations. What is sought

in the bill is the first and tiniest step towards union security, which is a plank in our platform. The check-off, along with its more vigorous and younger brother, the Rand formula, is now being followed in hundreds of labour contracts in Canada. The bill merely points out that it is high time it was written into the law. Labour has already earned it, and it would appear that at this time it deserves to have it written into the law. The management philosophy of "keep them poor and keep them fighting" is not in accordance with modern trends, and is not good for labour-management relations.
There are two safeguards in the bill, the word "voluntary", and the word "revocable". The employee must ask management to make the deduction, and the employee has the right to cancel the request whenever he or she feels so inclined. It seems to me no greater precaution is necessary. Having regard to our long history of good labour relations, I think it is a most logical step. I am sure that no member of the house questions the right of any man to belong to the union of his choice. As a matter of fact we encourage it. No one in the house questions the right of unions to impose union dues. We recognize that, and in many instances management collects the dues. It is hard to understand what possible objection employers could have to deducting union dues on request. As has been pointed out, they already do so with respect to income tax, unemployment insurance, pension and hospitalization plans. As a matter of fact the dominion government is very helpful in that regard and co-operates with the civil servants. I have a clipping from the Ottawa Citizen of April 3, 1950, to which I should like to refer. It reads in part:
The amalgamated civil servants of Canada and the civil service association of Ottawa issued statements over the week end welcoming Saturday's announcement that the government would provide the check-off for a proposed civil service health plan, but indicating a belief in the principle of employer contribution to the cost of the premiums.
Then the article quotes a man by the name of Fred Knowles-not from Winnipeg North Centre-as follows:
We are very pleased that the government has agreed to provide the check-off as a means of furthering a comprehensive hospitalization and medical insurance plan for civil servants as recommended by the national joint council of the public service of Canada.
All that is involved in the check-off of union dues is just another operation for the bookkeeper. In a discussion in the house a few days ago the matter of income tax deductions was mentioned, and some members raised the question whether farmers who belonged to farm organizations would be

permitted to deduct their dues to such organizations in the same way as was proposed for union members. I think the answer was that it was intended that they should have the same opportunity. Perhaps it would be interesting to the house to know that, in Ontario at least, farmers already possess the right to check off their dues to the federation of agriculture despite the fact that there is no check-off for union dues in that province. Section 315 of the municipal act provides that any township council may levy a special rate, not exceeding one-half mill, on all persons who appear upon the rolls as farmers. That is to be the annual membership fee to the federation of agriculture. A person so taxed may within thirty days after the delivery of the assessment indicate that he objects to the assessment, in which case the assessor must amend and deliver a new assessment. There is the revocable check-off, but there is nothing particularly voluntary about it. The council may pass it on their own without any recourse to the farmers of the township. The tax collected is the same as any other assessment, and appears on the rolls of the assessor as "federation of agriculture membership fees." It is not a charge on land, and there is no penalty for non-payment. The treasurer must deposit the money in a special account which he pays over to the federation of agriculture at the end of the year when he sends them a list of all those who did not pay the assessment. For performing this service the assessor may charge the federation whatever the federation agrees to pay.
As I recall it, the opposition to the checkoff is that it is a proper matter for collective bargaining, that there is some compulsion and coercion connected with it. It is also suggested that it may lead to legislation with respect to wages and working conditions. Speaking in the house the other day the minister pointed out that the province of Saskatchewan, the industrialized province of British Columbia, and the provinces of Alberta, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, all have upon their statute books at the present time provision for a check-off. I leave it to the house to answer the question whether labour conditions in those provinces are not better than they are in the provinces that have not enacted the check-off. I point out that five provinces have already on their statute books legislation calling for the check-off, and that labour relations in those provinces have never been better. The checkoff has been helpful. Perhaps one reason why Ontario has not legislation in reference to the check-off is that the unions are so strong they are able to get the check-off without
Industrial Relations
difficulty. Where we have weak unions and strong companies, however, it is impossible for the unions to get the check-off.
We in this house have a special responsibility. A few years ago many hon. members from all sides took time to write what we considered to be a national labour code. It is a very good code. It has been followed in many instances by legislatures across Canada. Our hope was that it would be a model. Now we find that with respect to a very important matter, the check-off, we in Ottawa are lagging behind. It may be said that it will not affect a large number of people, since not many come under the dominion labour code; but that in itself is not important. What is important, I think, is that we should give leadership. It is our duty and responsibility to give the same sort of leadership we have been giving in other matters.
All the check-off requires is co-operation on the part of the employer. Why anyone who desires good labour relations in his plant should refuse it is beyond me. Labour relations in this country are improving from year to year, as we have more understanding on the one side and greater reasonableness on the other. The check-off can help. It would give labour leaders and union members an opportunity to devote their time to other matters concerning labour relations which are more important than the collecting of dues. It may be that ultimately it will lead to the Rand formula, which of course is what labour would like and what it is entitled to have. For too long too many people have been riding free, getting the benefits of labour organization without paying anything for it. I think it should be understood that the money the labour unions collect is not used for the purpose of paying high salaries. They do welfare work. They have credit unions to finance. From time to time they have to augment the pensions of their members. They have other things to do that are of considerable importance.
We have been talking about this problem for a very long time-too long. The check-off has been taken for granted by a large number of people across the country. As for me, I think it is as inevitable as tomorrow. It seems to me this is a good opportunity to write it into our statutes as an act of this parliament; to say that it flows as a natural result wherever we have a collective bargaining agreement coming within the four corners of the act. It is my belief that the check-off improves labour relations. I think you will find those relations have improved in plants where the check-off has been given an opportunity to prove itself. I ask the house to take this opportunity to support this bill.

Industrial Relations


Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, for over thirty years I have paid my trade union dues monthly, quarterly, halfyearly or yearly. I have done this willingly, because I have participated in the great benefits my trade union organization, acting for me in the industry in which I am engaged, has brought about. It has benefited my economic life; it has given me a better standard of living, and a greater appreciation of the cordial relations that should exist under an agreement negotiated between management and the bargaining authority on behalf of the employees. Almost every pay day on the railway a collector comes around for the trade union dues. He is not a paid representative of the union, but someone like myself, working in the industry. He comes to the office or shop and says, "Listen, chum, fork over your dues for the current month." Up to a year or a year and a half ago I would hand over $1.25 to that collector. Now I pay a little more.
On the other hand there are people who have been engaged in the industry for many years, who have worked alongside me, whom I respect and admire and work with very sociably, but who think the union is not of any great value, and who accept all the benefits under the agreements negotiated on their behalf but still pay no union dues. I have no particular objection if those people do not want to belong to the union, except that my dues and assessments are higher because I have to help carry those fellows on my back. I agree that a check-off of union dues should be negotiated and put into effect by our strong, respected unions at the very earliest opportunity. When our present contract expires, that is one matter my union will take up in negotiating a new agreement; but when they negotiate a check-off I want them to be sure it will not catch me only, who have been paying my dues for over thirty years, but will also catch those in our industry who have been enjoying all the benefits without belonging to the union or paying their dues.
It seems to me that if we were to support the amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act as proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in Bill No. 4, we would not only establish a floor but also a ceiling. That is not the kind of check-off I want, nor is it the kind of check-off the people want with whom I am associated in the trade union movement. We want a different form of check-off, the form that is commonly known as the Rand formula. Under this formula a person who is covered by a collective agreement, whether or not he belongs to the union, pays his dues to the union. Those dues will

be checked off his wages. That is the very minimum we should expect to have as a check-off.
I do not subscribe to the views of those well intentioned people who do not belong to the trade union movement, and who are trying to be the saviours of trade union people. The member for Toronto Spadina (Mr. Croll), a very good friend of mine, has suggested that if we do not have the checkoff we are going to keep the unions fighting, and we are going to keep them poor. My union is well aware of its responsibilities. We do not fight with management; we negotiate as gentlemen. We are not poor. I can take you over to the headquarters of my organization in the city of Ottawa. I am proud of the fact that in only thirty years we have built up a head office personnel comprising well-trained' and educated people, who handle our trade union activities in a responsible manner. I do not believe they would wish the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act amended by the innocuous sort of check-off that is suggested in this bill. I have every confidence that in time we shall have the sort of check-off we want.
I believe that discussions of this type are valuable. I do know, and I wish you to know, that my union is strong enough and has the confidence of its members to such an extent that it will be able, when the appropriate time arrives to open the contract, then negotiate for a check-off provision. It will get the sort of check-off provision that is going to be of some value to my colleagues who are trade unionists, and who are covered by that agreement.


Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill this afternoon I am necessarily under certain physical limitations, having just recovered from a serious illness of six months' duration. My remarks will, therefore, be brief. Nevertheless I think the issues are clear, and brevity is the thing that is necessary under the circumstances.
The constituency of Toronto Rosedale sent me here because a good many supporters responded to my platform of social security without socialism. In my opinion this bill is based on union security without socialism. In my view it will produce a strong and stronger trade union movement in this country if it is enacted. I support, therefore, the principle of the voluntary revocable checkoff contained in this proposed legislation. I will vote for the bill.


Mr. Paul E. Cole (Verdun-La Salle):: Mr. Speaker, I would not let this opportunity pass without informing the house of my personal reaction to the principle to which

the sponsor of this bill has drawn the attention of the house. The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) draws the attention of the house to a form of union security which should appeal, and in fact undoubtedly appeals, to most hon. members and to the people of the country generally. The voluntary revocable check-off is, as has been justly stated, the minimum measure of union security that can be put into effect. I favour the principle of union security, and consequently have no quarrel with anyone who wishes to promote it. Personally I feel that the voluntary revocable check-off is too little, and that it will not serve the purpose for which it is intended. I do not know of many agreements in which there is a clause calling for the voluntary revocable check-off because, as I said a moment ago, it affords so little union security.
The purpose of this debate is not to seek the views of this house on the principle of union security, as it more particularly concerns the advisability of this measure of check-off in the relations between labour and management. The bill goes much further, and it is at this juncture that I must part company with my friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre. The bill is intended to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act by inserting therein a clause which would make it mandatory, in any labour-management agreement, to have this voluntary revocable check-off. I consider it important first to remind my friend that by his bill he aims at amending peacetime permanent legislation. The Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is the result of the experience of our federal Department of Labour in the administration of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and the administration of the wartime labour relations regulations, P.C. 1003, up until about 1947. It is also the result of consultation with the various provincial authorities, labour organizations and management organizations across the country. They all considered that this was to be a permanent basis, set up by statutory action, for the regulation of labour relations across the country in the fields which properly belong to the federal jurisdiction.
Before going any further, I should like to call as an authority an hon. member of this house who had this to say during the discussion which took place on Bill No. 195 in 1948:
I agree with the minister as to the desirability of having free collective bargaining and that it should be done by the employees and the employers and not by the state for them. But we have got to the place where we realize that the state has to do some of the umpiring and lay down some of the rules.
Industrial Relations
This whole act provides that under collective bargaining you cannot go out on strike unless you have gone through certain conditions. I am now saying that in collective bargaining the pension and rights must not be in jeopardy at all.
Those words were used by the mover of this motion, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and they can be found at page 286 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the standing committee on industrial relations, 1948. I quite see what my hon. friend had in mind, having laid down this general principle that the state should not trespass in the field of free collective bargaining, and after that, stating an example as to which, to his mind, an encroachment on that principle could be admitted. But at the time my hon. friend was aiming at stating what would be called by statute an unfair labour practice, which was a determination, in his mind, of section 4, subsection 2, paragraph (b) of the act. In the mind of the then minister of labour, the addition advocated by my hon. friend was not necessary. The general statement of this paragraph (b) is as follows:
impose any condition in a contract of employment seeking to restrain an employee from exercising his rights under this act . . .
This was sufficient to cover the point which my hon. friend was discussing, but he finally succeeded in adding this subparagraph. I myself did not have any objection. On the contrary, I congratulated my hon. friend on making a precis of the purport of this subparagraph.
I fully agree with the general principle he laid down in my first quotation of his words, namely, that free collective bargaining should be done by employers and employees-not by the state for them, which is the principle involved in the motion we are considering, and to which I am opposed. I favour the check-off in a better way than what is called the voluntary revocable check-off. I think that the check-off agreed upon between management and labour should be at least irrevocable for the duration of the agreement. That would be my starting point in matters of union security. But the other principle, which calls for the intrusion of the state into matters of collective bargaining, is to my mind an objectionable principle, because it means a usurpation by the state of a field of action and decision which has been so far regarded as the exclusive privilege of labour and management.
If one looks back to the past and realizes what we could achieve under the existing federal legislation and wartime orders which left absolutely free to the initiative of labour and management the field of collective bargaining, one must hesitate before sapping, I

Industrial Relations
would say, the very structure of our existing machinery. So far there is in the act no principle of a like nature which my hon. friend could invoke in support of his amendment.
To my mind the passing of this measure would set an extremely dangerous precedent. I venture to say that if I were to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre what he would do at an ensuing session, assuming that today we adopted his amendment, I would find it would be a starting point for him or for others in this house to urge the inclusion in the act of more and more of those steps which have been so far reserved for collective bargaining. I am sure that my hon. friend would not be satisfied, even if we were to pass this bill providing for the voluntary revocable check-off. I am sure that it would not be long before he would come to the house again and ask for another amendment calling for a greater measure of union security. Do I understand that my hon. friend agrees with what I say?


Mr. Knowles:: Yes.


Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle):: Thank you.
If that is so, by adopting this amendment we are engaging the state in a field of activity which belongs to labour and management, and we would be restricting more and more as we went along the area of free collective bargaining between labour and management. As the late Humphrey Mitchell used to say, some of these days all collective agreements will be settled on the floor of this house, and once we start in that direction it will be difficult to draw the line. He also used to say that what parliament can give to labour, it can take away from it. My hon. friends will recall vividly the various ways in which he would illustrate that point time and again. But his strongest argument was his reference to the experience in the United States. As was mentioned by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg), there was a swing in the United States from a rather leftist labour act towards a rather rightist one. When the first labour act, the Wagner act, was introduced in 1935, there was a preponderance of support for a greater measure of security and protection to labour. In the course of the years that followed there was a gradual reaction which resulted in a preponderance of influence favouring a change in the act, and in the bringing into force of the Taft-Hartley act. That is only a natural course.
The Canadian parliament and the Department of Labour here should not be prolabour or pro-management. Its first duty should be the safeguarding of the public. That function was well illustrated last fall
[Mr. Cote (Verdun-La Salle) .1
when a measure was submitted to the house to put an end to the railway strike. Canadian policy in matters of labour relations so far-and that has been the key to the success which it has achieved-has been one of proper balance between management and labour. Our act sets the procedure to be followed by both parties. It squarely places on both management and labour, without any kind of discrimination or preferential treatment, the strict obligation to bargain together in good faith, but does not say what the bargain should be. With this set of legislation and rules, organized labour has trebled its membership in ten years. Of course we cannot take the credit for all of this; but in the better part of that decade organized labour had to turn to the federal authorities to get its legislation and regulations. These were times of war, and emergency immediately following a state of war.
In a few words I should like along broad lines to review the chief features and purposes of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, so that the house may refresh its memory on the purposes and aims of the act, and the spirit underlying that legislation. The first principle of interest and importance, set out in the act, is the right of labour to organize. On this point I shall not do more than to explain how important the federal authorities deemed this to be, if both management and labour were to deal with each other on an equal footing.
Another important feature is the setting up of provisions condemning unfair labour practices and outlawing company unions. Then there was the certification of bargaining agencies, giving to the majority of the workers in a plant the absolute right to be officially recognized for the purposes of this act as the bargaining agent for that plant.
Compulsory collective bargaining is a very important feature of the act, making it possible for management and labour to bargain together in good faith. Then, there was the setting up of machinery which the department placed at the disposal of both parties with a view to facilitating the settlement of disputes and for co-operation in the negotiations and the agreements resulting therefrom. There was the appointment of conciliation officers and the establishment of boards of conciliation.
Without taking any sides in the matter- and this was the cornerstone of the policy of the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in labour matters-there was the invoking of publicity as a force which would work toward reasonableness in collective bargaining. There is machinery in the act which makes provision for a cooling-off period.

which is the time during which restrictions are placed on strikes and lockouts, and on the unilateral revision of working conditions until certification and conciliation proceedings have been complied with, and the minister has received a report.
In the act one will find a limited measure of compulsory arbitration. Strictly speaking this is not compulsory arbitration, but rather an effort to settle any differences of opinion that may arise between labour and management in the interpretation of collective agreements. This is intended to make agreements work without too much difficulty. It is provided that each agreement shall have a section making provision for such arbitration in the determination of the meaning of a word or a section in an agreement.
Having reviewed briefly the purpose of our act, one must readily admit that there is nothing in it which purports to interfere with the freedom of both parties in the conduct of their negotiations and the signing of their collective agreements. I repeat that this is a field which has been left the absolute privilege of management and labour, one from which the state has kept away and still intends to keep away.
If my hon. friend had built his argument on the fact that at the present time the majority of agreements connected with matters falling under federal jurisdiction have clauses dealing with union security, or on this medium of union security, the voluntary revocable check-off, his argument would surely gain strength. He would be asking the house to recognize a state of affairs which actually exists, and which has been made possible through collective agreements and understandings between management and labour. That however is not the situation.
The important body of workers to whom this act applies, in so far as their relations with management are concerned, is the body of railway workers. They have not the checkoff. As hon. members know, there was a long process of negotiation with the railway companies. They had a severe dispute which resulted in a strike, about which we have all the important information. So far as I know the check-off was not a deciding issue in that dispute, although it was one of the demands of the Canadian brotherhoods, one of the organizations involved. But this matter of the check-off was soon dropped when the dispute reached the final stage of settlement. The check-off was not one of the terms of reference to Mr. Justice Kellock, who finally arbitrated the dispute.
Industrial Relations
The check-off is still a matter to be discussed between management and labour, so far as railway workers are concerned. That is the situation in most other fields of labour relations under federal jurisdiction. Would the hon. member contend that in such a situation the federal parliament could intervene in order to place on the statute books a compulsory measure making provision for the voluntary revocable check-off, which would involve compulsion as it affected management, when there has been so little done thus far along the lines mentioned in the act, with the assistance of the machinery set up by the act for negotiation and collective agreements between management and labour in the federal field of jurisdiction?


Mr. Carroll:: What other organizations
employing labour outside of the railroads and shipping companies would this act apply to?


Charles Delmar Coyle: I would not like to state definitely the fields of jurisdiction, but I would refer the hon. member to section 53 of the act which contains the terms of section 91 of the British North America Act and sets out the fields of jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Those fields of jurisdiction have been brought under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.


William F. Carroll: There are very few outside of the two I have mentioned to which the act would apply.


Charles Delmar Coyle: There are a certain number, such as radio broadcasting, air transport and public works. Referring again to the principle which has been so well enunciated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre during the debates in the standing committee to which I referred, I want to point out that so far the federal authorities have left the free collective bargaining field to management and labour. The state has not endeavoured to interfere in any way. I must point out that I am discussing the advisability of amending permanent peacetime legislation. There is nothing in the bill before the house that claims the existence of a national emergency. Circumstances such as those which existed last September would justify the establishment of a special principle in matters of labour relations. When he was introducing the special measure to put an end to the railroad dispute the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated that there was no intention to amend the peacetime legislation, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, in order to bring an end to the railroad dispute. This house	passed that	special legislation


Mr. James Sinclair (Coasi-Capilano):: So
far as this bill is concerned, in the last two or three years I have been content merely to cast my vote, but in view of the invitation of my colleague, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, to give the matter

Industrial Relations
further consideration and to express our views, and also in view of some of the remarks made by my fellow Liberal, the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald), I think I should say a few words this time in support of the vote which I have cast in favour of the bill in the past. The opening point I should like to make has to do with the remark made by the hon. member for Edmonton East that he was a union man, giving the impression that others who are not union men perhaps are not as well qualified to speak on the matter. There is an old saying that the average man is a better judge of a good egg than any hen that ever laid an egg, and I think that may be true in such affairs as are now under consideration.
If members of parliament were restricted to speaking on subjects of which they have professional experience our debates would be pretty limited, and many of our constituents would certainly have little representation from their members of parliament. I represent a large labour riding in British Columbia, and if results at the polls are any indication I enjoy some measure of their confidence. I also worked at one time in one of the large mines in my riding at a time when it was not organized. Today I represent it in parliament when it is very highly organized, and perhaps I can see best the very great improvement in working and living conditions at Britannia mines since the unions entered that field.
I was a member of the industrial relations committee which considered the present national labour code. I supported the amendment of my deskmate, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), to include in the code the voluntary revocable check-off. Because of the remarks of the parliamentary assistant I am reminded that there was a Liberal majority on the committee, and I am also reminded that the Liberal majority was composed for the most part of representatives of ridings which were largely industrial. That amendment carried in the committee and was rejected later in the House of Commons. I have taken an interest in such legislation outside the federal field because I have been fairly active in the Liberal party in British Columbia. When attending one of our provincial conventions I remember supporting a similar resolution. We were more successful there because in 1947 the provincial government incorporated this very principle in their labour code. I think hon. members will agree that there is no province in Canada where labour is better organized than in the province of British Columbia. We have now had experience in the province with this legislation for four years, and none of the 80709-491
dire forebodings of the parliamentary assistant have followed. There has been no Taft-Hartley law. The change has worked very well in our large industrial province.
On these general grounds, the fact that I have supported such legislation both federally and provincially, I of course must support the bill when it comes to a vote. What are the arguments against incorporation which have been repeated in the house? The first is that it should be left to the free process of collective bargaining between employer and employee. Our national labour code does force them to negotiate collectively. That is very true in principle. However, if it were left entirely to this process all across the country we would find that the powerful industrial unions would certainly get it, because they are very powerful when it comes to negotiating, and the small craft union, only a small part of the working force of a great plant, would have very great difficulty in getting such a concession included in its working agreement.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: May I be
permitted a question?


James Sinclair: Yes.


Albert Frederick Macdonald: Are there any small organizations without the strength that are under the coverage of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act proposed to be amended by the bill?


James Sinclair: In his argument the hon.
member was not restricting himself at all to the few fields under the national code. Even in the federal field I do not think all unions are as powerful, and apparently as well financed, as the union which he himself described. That has been one of the arguments both federally and provincially against extending the principle in the bill to the general labour code. The other argument which has been made in this debate, and in the debates last year and two years ago, was to this effect: Yes, it may be quite true this will work well within the confines of a province with those industries which are fairly local but it would be very difficult to work out in the principal federal labour field, the railways, which are enormous transcontinental systems working under varying conditions.
So far as railways are concerned, there is one in my riding, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. Its terminus is in my riding. It does not come under federal legislation because it is entirely a provincial railway and comes within the provisions of the British Columbia labour act. Such a provision has worked very well for the men of the railway unions working out of Squamish

Industrial Relations
on. the P.G.E. So far as the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. are concerned, as well as being in the railway business they are also in the hotel and coastal steamship businesses in British Columbia. The British Columbia law giving the voluntary revocable check-off applies to the various unions working in the C.P.R. and C.N.R. hotels and on the coastal steamships-not on the deep-sea steamships. It has worked very well there.
More than that, the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. right across the country have various checkoffs for their employees now in force, and not just voluntary revocable check-offs. There are many involuntary irrevocable check-offs. First and foremost must come income tax. The income tax deduction is certainly a part of the pay of a man but the companies check that off without his consent, and he cannot voluntarily cancel it as he could cancel this type of check-off. Second, in the provinces workmen's compensation premiums are checked off. Third- and it is a federal check-off-are the premiums for unemployment insurance- involuntary, irrevocable. In addition, both railway systems have of course voluntary revocable check-offs in force for group insurance and pensions. Coming back to the Department of Finance, during the war there were voluntary deductions for war bonds, and since the war we have encouraged employees of industries across the country to purchase dominion savings bonds on exactly the same basis, voluntary revocable check-off by the employer, thus assuring regular payment to the crown for the purchase of these bonds. To add one more revocable check-off to that list should not present insuperable difficulties to either the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific.
Then both the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote) expressed their opposition on what are old grounds to anyone who has studied political history. They were opposed to this measure because it was too little. The hon. member for Edmonton East said this was not good enough. What he wants is something much better, the Rand formula. My colleague the parliamentary assistant repeated almost the same thing; what he wanted was the irrevocable check-off for the duration of the contract.


Charles Delmar Coyle: By collective agreement.


James Sinclair: That would be a great
improvement over what is being asked in this bill; but once again, to have these things you must take the first step. This may be asking only a little, but I think it is a step in the right direction. If this bill is successful

this year, then next year I am sure the people who are supporting this now will gladly support these other hon. members when they want to bring in the Rand formula and the irrevocable check-off for the duration of an agreement.
If this bill is not successful this year I have a suggestion to make. It is that next year the bill be handled by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) who first introduced it in the industrial relations committee. I am sure those of us who are in favour of it will support it quite apart from who may be the sponsor.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I too was a member of the committee that dealt with the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and supported this proposal when it was introduced in that committee by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll). I have also supported it in this chamber on one or two occasions when amendments have been introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I need not again go over the arguments I used on those occasions, arguments that have been repeated by others who today are supporting this amending bill. May I just say, though, that the support it is receiving today is more enthusiastic than anything I have seen since the amendment was first proposed.
On another occasion I heard the parliamentary assistant speak to a similar amendment, but on that occasion he made a much better fist of it than he did today. Let us take his main argument in opposition to the bill. He says the amendment would interfere with free collective bargaining. I ask the members of this house, what does the act itself do but interfere with free collective bargaining? All laws of this kind interfere with the freedom of somebody. It extends the freedom of those who have too little freedom. It curtails the freedom of those who have too much, and who use it to curtail the freedom of others. That is the purpose of legislation of this kind.
Then the parliamentary assistant went on to say that he was opposed to it because if the house approved this amendment today the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would be back next year asking for something else. Well, surely that is what parliament is for. Surely even if we pass this amendment today the act will not be perfect, and someone like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will note that we have not yet attained perfection and will come forward here, where

such matters should be brought up, and propose other amendments that will make the act more nearly perfect.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Where will it end if you accept that principle?


Angus MacInnis: It will never end as long as there is a human wrong to be corrected, as long as the weak person or the weak organization needs protection from the strong. If a time should come when all the things parliament could do to improve the lot of the human family have been done-


James Sinclair: We will be in heaven.


Angus MacInnis: I expect to be there a long time before that. Another argument the hon. gentleman put forward was that he was a middle of the road man and was opposed to this because evidently he does not think it is middle of the road legislation. I suggest that it is just as much middle of the road legislation as the rest of the act. There is no more compulsion in it, if as much, than in some of the other provisions of the act. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that in the world in which we live today the man who walks in the middle of the road is liable to be run over.


Charles Delmar Coyle: Would my hon. friend permit me to correct him? He has misinterpreted my remarks. When I referred to a middle of the road position I was referring to the function of the state as between labour on the one hand and management on the other.


Angus MacInnis: I am not disagreeing with that. In my opinion it is fundamental that the purpose of the act is neither to protect employers nor labour organizations. I think the act recognizes that there is a community interest, and that parliament must take steps to see that the community is not torn to pieces between organized labour and organized employers. The purpose of the act is to regulate collective bargaining as between employers and trade unions. So there is nothing involved here which has not been recognized in this country for many years.
I was not in the house during the entire speech by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald). When I came in he was telling us what a strong and useful organization he was a member of and that if the time ever came when his organization wanted the check-off it had the strength to get it. It seems to me the hon. member has a rather short memory. When we came here in September of last year the first matter we had to deal with was a dispute between the railway companies and some of their employees. I believe the organization to
Industrial Relations
which the hon. member belongs, the C.B. of R.E., was one of the principals in that dispute. It is also my understanding that one of the proposals they made to the railway companies was for the check-off, whether the irrevocable or the revocable check-off I cannot remember at the moment. But they dropped that proposal; they were not able to get it, just as they were not able to get many other things of which this parliament had to take cognizance when taking steps to see that they got an agreement of some kind. As a matter of fact in the world of today we cannot leave things to a sheer trial of strength. Legislation should be designed not to protect the strong, who do not need it, but the weak, who do need it. When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) was speaking of this question a few evenings ago, he honoured me by referring to me. He also referred to a statement of an interview that appeared in a Vancouver paper after my return from the ILO conference in Geneva. I am glad of this opportunity to say something to the minister on this point, because the Department of Labour took action at the time which very much displeased me.
The minister quoted me from the Vancouver Province "Labour Laws 'Tops' ", and that is what I said on my return. He was good enough to say, of course, that the member for Vancouver East had not written the article. I shall read from the article as it appears on page 639 of Hansard:
"Canada provides as much machinery for the settlement of labour-management grievances as does any country in the world. In fact, Canada is far in advance of most countries," said Mr. Maclnnis.
The fact is that most countries have no labour legislation of this kind.
Then, the item goes on:
"The Canadian government does not consider industrial disputes a matter for labour and management alone. In providing machinery for conciliation and arbitration, the government is considering the welfare of communities as a whole," he declared.
I am still of that opinion and I declare it right now. I believe it is a sound principle. Of course, the article appearing in the Vancouver Province was the result of a twenty or thirty-minute interview condensed into a few lines. I was referring particularly to one of the principal matters that came before the ILO conference, a draft recommendation on collective bargaining, arbitration and conciliation. The delegation from Canada was instructed to support to a certain point compulsory conciliation. In that connection in the interview I was drawing attention to the fact that in our Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, and in the various acts in the provinces, we are in advance of most

Industrial Relations
countries, and we could very easily support that part of the measure which came before the conference.
It may be of interest to the members of the house to know that in the conference compulsory conciliation was unanimously supported by the workers' delegates. It was opposed almost unanimously by the employers' delegates. The government delegates were more or less divided on the subject, because in some countries such as the United Kingdom they have no legislation of that type. In that country it has been assumed for quite a long time that trade unions were able to look after themselves. Let me draw this to the attention of the house, that the British workers' delegates supported the recommendation in this way: "We may not need it, but if workers in other countries who are not as well organized as we are need it, then we are for it and are supporting it".
The Minister of Labour made one other quotation from what I was supposed to have said, as it appeared in the Vancouver Province. This quotation appears on page 640 of Hansard:
"The workers' right to strike has been won and now he should lay emphasis on the right to work, the right to produce, and the right to increase efficiency," he declared.
I do not know just exactly where the minister got those words, but I have in my hand an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province of July 21, 1950. Those words are in the editorial, but they are not quoted as my words. I shall read a short portion of the editorial:
Angus Maclnnis, M.P., home from a conference of the international labour organization at Geneva, has some good advice to offer organized labour. Now that the right of the worker to strike has been won, says Mr. Maclnnis, the worker should recognize the right to work, produce and increase efficiency.
It appeared to me that statement in the Vancouver Province would be misconstrued by organized labour throughout the country, so the next day I wrote a letter to the Vancouver Province pointing out that they should have given more of what I said or none at all. I think I should read my letter to the Vancouver Province into the record, because that paper did not extend the courtesy of printing it. I said:
Dear Sir:
In your editorial comment on my remark that the right to strike having been won, the workers should now place more emphasis on the right to work, to produce, to increase efficiency, you convey the impression that these are matters which are wholly in the control of the workers. I am convinced that that is far from being the case.

The right to strike was won by workers without much help. The other rights which I mentioned can be attained only by giving the workers some share in the purpose and management of industry. If the workers are to attain this position, they must have the co-operation of employers and government. A start has been made in this direction through the development of labour-management production committees.
Your editorial also infers that the greater the production, the greater the workers' share of the product. Unfortunately that is not the way it has worked out over a period of time. The nightmare of every worker's life is the fear of unemployment. It is my experience that unemployment comes when there is too much, and not too little production- that is, when goods pile up undistributed. Before the workers can be asked, by their union leaders or anyone else, for greater production and greater efficiency, they must have assurance that such action will result in a general increase in the standard of living, and not in unemployment.
I am convinced that the next objective of the trade union movement should be along lines of greater productivity. But along with greater productivity must go an improvement in consumer spending and a more equitable distribution of the produced wealth. Only by such far-reaching changes can an effective frontal attack be made on mass poverty.
Yours sincerely,
Angus Maclnnis, M.P.
Before the department circularized a statement such as the Vancouver Province editorial, without any suggestion as to its authorship, when my name was prominently mentioned in it, I think they should at least have consulted me. I drew this matter to the attention of the deputy minister in a letter dated August 23, 1950. In the concluding paragraph I said:
I suppose that nothing can be done to correct the impression that has been conveyed, but I would be glad if, in future, the Department of Labour wishes to use my name it would consult me first. I hope I do not appear egotistical, but I imagine this item was circulated, not because it appeared in the Vancouver Province but because my name was connected with it.
Although this matter does not come directly under the heading of arguments either for or against this bill, I am glad of this opportunity to refer to it.
Let me say again that there is in this amendment nothing that is repugnant to any other part of the act. It is purely permissive legislation; and it is legislation that is today being more and more accepted by employers in their relations with trade unions. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote) referred to the great strides made by labour during the last decade. It is true that labour has made great strides during the last decade, but there is nothing unusual about that. Labour made those strides because of the demand for labour. Labour because of that demand was strong, a position that it had not held for several decades previously. It must be remembered that labour organization in this country was backward up until

Industrial Relations
the beginning of the last decade when the materially to mutual understanding and demand for labour during the war made its co-operation, without which good labour-position much stronger. Let me point out management relations cannot exist, again that the purpose of legislation of this For those reasons, I believe that this mea-kind is to protect the weak and not the strong, sure is one which will promote good labourite purpose also is to make labour relations management relations generally; and hence as between employers and labour organiza- i believe it is a measure which should com-tions run more smoothly. I hope the house mend itself to the support of all members of will approve the amendment.	this house. I intend to vote for it.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the measure which is now before us is a good one, for four reasons; and those are the reasons why I am going to support it.
First of all, I think it provides a service to a great many men and women in industry because, if they want to take advantage of the service, they can have their union dues deducted. I think we all know it is much easier to pay dues of any kind if they are first deducted from your pay cheque before you receive it, instead of receiving the money and then having to pay it over for union dues or dues of any other kind.
The second reason is that I do not believe it costs anything-or, if anything, very little- to the management of companies to have this measure in operation. Already today a great majority of companies have anything up to half a dozen or more deductions which they make from their employees' pay cheques before they go out at the end of each month; there are deductions for such things as unemployment insurance, health insurance, pensions, group insurance and so on. The addition of one more deduction will cost little, if anything, more to the company.
The third reason is that there is no compulsion whatsoever upon the employee to have his union dues deducted. Before any deductions can be made, he must first notify his employer, in writing, to that effect; and if at any time he wishes to have the practice discontinued, he merely has to notify his employer, again in writing, and no further deductions can be made.
The fourth reason is that it will provide a real service to the unions, which play such an important role in our industrial life of today.
A number of those who have supported this measure have done so from the point of view of union members, speaking from practical experience. I should like to express an opinion on behalf of management, because I happen to be associated with the management of a firm employing approximately 500 people. We have had the voluntary revocable checkoff in operation in our company for several years past, and we have found that it has produced nothing but good. We have found that it has contributed


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I am sure that those of us who are particularly interested in this measure and in labour relations generally, feel that we have had a good discussion of this question of the voluntary revocable check-off. Maybe I am a bit prejudiced, but I think that those who have spoken for the bill have had much the better of the argument. It so happens that a total of twelve members have taken part in the debate and if my arithmetic is correct-and I believe it is-the score is nine to three. Nine have spoken for it and only three have spoken against it. The members who have spoken include seven Liberals, including the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cote). But of those seven Liberals, four have spoken for the bill.
I suggest that this augurs well for the vote that will be taken as soon as I complete these closing remarks. As I indicated the other evening when I moved the second' reading of the bill, progress is being made. When this principle was voted on in 1948 on the floor of the house, 35 members voted for the voluntary revocable check-off. When it was voted on in 1950, that number had increased to 45 members. In view of the wide and strong support that has been given to this measure today, particularly by individuals on the government side of the house, I am hopeful that we shall have a much better vote today. Indeed, the time has come for this bill to pass.
I appreciate the remarks that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Sinclair) made with reference to the fact that this measure was introduced in the committee in 1948 by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll); and I notice he suggested to the hon. member for Spadina that if it failed this year, he might bring it in next year. Why wait until next year? Is this not the day when not only the hon. member for Spadina, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) and

Industrial Relations the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Henry) but all other good Liberals should stand and vote for the principle of this bill and write the voluntary revocable check-off into the national labour code.
There have been so many speakers in favour of this bill, and they have dealt so well with many of the arguments put up by the three who tried to oppose it, that there is not much that I need to say. However, I should like to comment upon one sentence in the speech of the Minister of Labour the other night. As reported at page 639 of Hansard he said:
The question as to whether the check-off is to be instituted might well be left to the parties themselves to determine, in accordance with the needs of particular situations and in accordance witk relative economic power.
As the hon. member for Coast-Capilano has pointed out, it is that very situation that it is parliament's job to do something about. If we leave these matters to groups to determine on the basis of relative economic power, we do not always get what is right and fair. If a principle such as the one I am advocating is right and fair and just, then it is the job of parliament to write it into our statute books.
The hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Macdonald) has said that he is anxious to have something far more than this bill asks for. I understood him to favour the Rand formula. The hon. member for Coast-Capilano has already pointed out that that is no argument against taking the first step, and getting started on the road in that direction.
As a matter of fact the hon. member for Edmonton East is a member of an organization which last year was trying to get the check-off. I am sure that the Canadian brotherhood of railway employees would like to have the Rand formula on the railways. But they knew, in their negotiations with the railways, that they had to start by asking for something they might be able to obtain, with the result that they started by asking for the check-off. Unfortunately they did not have sufficient power to get even that, and it went by the board during the course of the negotiations that led up to the dispute last fall. His own organization needs the help of this bill; surely that is clear.
I say to the hon. member for Edmonton East that I agree with him as to the desirability of the Rand formula. Like the hon. member, I have been paying dues to a trade union for many years-and still do. In other words I help to pay into funds that are used to improve the conditions of all those who work at the printing trade in Winnipeg and in other places. There are workers at the trade who receive the advantages the union is winning


for them, without paying their share of the costs. The aim of the Rand formula is to correct situations of that kind.
But we have not yet reached that point in this house. Here is a step in the right direction. Surely this is the day to take that step, in positive terms. The hon. member for Verdun-La Salle (Mr. Cote), parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, likewise said he thought we should have something better than the voluntary revocable check-off. I wondered for a moment if he, too, was seeking the Rand formula; but I take it what he prefers is the check-off made irrevocable during the period of the contract. Having said that we should have something better than this, the parliamentary assistant then goes on to express his fear that my bill goes too far. He says we would have to consult the provinces and others involved in the drafting of the original labour code.
It is the same old story we have had over and over again: if we bring in bills which take a minimum step we are told by some members we have not asked for enough. But everyone knows that if I had brought in legislation asking for something more, such as either the Rand formula type of check-off or the irrevocable check-off for the length of a contract, hon. members on the government side would take the stand that I was asking for too much.
I do suggest seriously that arguments of that sort should not carry much weight with members generally. I wish to say again that I welcome, and I am sure labour generally will welcome, the support that has been given to the bill by those who have spoken for it. I hope the freedom with which Liberal members have spoken-and I say this sincerely, because I do appreciate the freedom they have shown on this occasion-indicates a readiness on the part of the government to let its members vote for this measure, on its merits.
One word, and I shall have finished. All of us in political life have said many times that labour plays a very important part in the life of this country. That is very true. Let us not only say it; let us show it by passing a measure of this kind, thereby helping to place labour in its rightful place in our national picture.



BANK ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Anderson:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of amending the Bank Act so as to place farmers in the same preferred class as labour, particularly in relation to protection for payments of farm produce delivered for processing.
Mr. R. E. Anderson (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to add very much to the remarks I made on Monday. Since that time several hon. members have indicated to me their desire to speak on the resolution. My sole purpose in introducing it is to give the primary producers a better deal and more security.


Mr. J. A. Charlton (Brant-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks in support of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Aniderson). With one or two exceptions, I agree with what he has said. I wish to read the resolution again. It is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of amending the Bank Act so as to place farmers in the same preferred class as labour, particularly in relation to protection for payments of farm produce delivered for processing.
As I said at the outset, I support the resolution, but there are a few things the hon. member for Norfolk said with which I do not quite agree. I want to quote some of his remarks which I believe leave a misrepresentation of the facts. At page 668 of Hansard for February 26 he said:
I should like this house to know that the farmer receives three cents or less for the green peas that
778

Bank Act
go into a can, and he must pay $28 per acre for seed, fertilizer, trucking, and also his own wages and labour and all other expenses.
That leaves the impression that the total cost of growing an acre of peas is $28, which is very far from the facts. Last year pea seed cost growers anywhere from $28 to $42 per acre. Seed cost the grower $7 a bushel, and he required four to six bushels an acre depending on the size of the peas. In addition the farmer has his fertilizer, the working of the ground and all the other expenses connected with the growing of a crop.
The situation at present is much better than it was a few years ago. Formerly the farmer signed his contract, grew his crop and, in the case of peas, took them to the cannery around the first week of July; but in most cases he did not receive any money until December 1. You will realize, Mr. Speaker, that in those cases the farmer was providing the capital on which the canning factory was running. In many cases the canning factory did not pay the producer until it had sold the product in cans to the wholesaler. In addition, if you bought fertilizer through the canning factory, usually they insisted that you pay interest starting one month from the time the fertilizer was purchased. That, I contend, was very unfair. Of course that is not the situation today. Since the Ontario farm products marketing act has come into force, with the amendments that have been made, the situation has been largely rectified. Now half the amount due for the product is paid within two or three weeks of the time it is taken to the cannery, and for the other half you wait until perhaps November 1, according to the various agreements the canning factories make through the marketing board.
This resolution seeks to amend section 88(7) of the Bank Act. I am not sure whether amending the Bank Act is the correct way to go about remedying this injustice. I do not profess to know enough about the Bank Act or about banking to express an opinion on that. I will say, however, that the situation is serious; and if this resolution will bring to the attention of hon. members and of the people generally the seriousness of the situation, I think it will have served its purpose.
I would urge, however, that the subject matter of this resolution be sent to the banking and commerce committee for further study, in the hope that some solution may be found.


Mr. Arthur Laing (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to compliment the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson) on having introduced this motion. The condition he has pointed up concerns farmers in practically every agricultural riding (Mr. Charlton.]
in Canada, and as far as I know he is the first hon. member to have shown the need for some remedial measures. I know in my own province a great many farm products are [DOT]shipped to processors or grading stations with no protection at all to the farmer. As a matter of fact some of our regulations pertaining to the shipment of those products make it impossible to sell them until they have been graded, so they have to be transported strictly on consignment.
An example of that is the case of eggs. According to dominion regulations it is illegal to transport ungraded eggs unless they carry a little sign saying, "Ungraded eggs. Not for sale." They must be graded at a licensed grading station before they are priceable at all; and the same situation exists in regard to the peas referred to by the previous speaker. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) has a large number of canning plants in his riding, and I know he will agree with me that a price cannot properly be placed upon these products until they have arrived at the station and been graded. Those of us whose knowledge of canned goods is gained chiefly in the stores will recall that in the case of peas you can buy grades 2, 3 or 4, or peas ungraded as to size, and the same is true in regard to cut beans. So there is no basis at all on which those products could be priced before leaving the farm.
What position is the farmer in? I know of many instances in Vancouver where wholesale egg handlers have gone into the country and bought ungraded eggs, graded them, sold them, taken the money and then gone bankrupt; and some of that group have a habit of starting up a week or a month later under a different name and doing it all over again. Manifestly some protection must be provided against that sort of thing. Like my hon. friend who has just spoken, I am not sure whether an amendment to the Bank Act is required or whether there should be an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act. Certainly I do want to highly praise the hon. member for having brought to the attention of the house a matter that is very live in our agricultural districts. If it is referred to the appropriate committee I am sure a sore point as far as the farmers of Canada are concerned will be taken care of as a result of his initiative.


Major James William Coldwell: want to support the motion that has been brought in, and I would join in expressing appreciation because it has been brought to the attention of this house. For the last year or two from various parts of Canada I have heard of farmers who have been unable to

collect for the produce they delivered because the company to which they delivered it had gone into bankruptcy. I have the details of such a case before me at the moment, but I should like to see a decision reached today so I am not going into those details. I can say, however, that last July I received a communication from New Brunswick with regard to a dairy company operating in Saint John which had been unable to pay the farmers in the locality who had supplied it. One young man, I was told, was owed $500; and in the maritime provinces $500 probably means rather more to that kind of farmer than this amount would mean in other parts of Canada, because there the feed problem is so difficult. The production of $500 worth of milk and cream would mean a considerable outlay on the part of the producer.
At the time I took up the case with the superintendent of bankruptcy to see if anything could be done. I have his reply before me, and substantially it is that in spite of the fact that we amended the Bankruptcy Act in 1949, no provision designed to protect a farmer under these circumstances can be found in that act. It seems to me the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Laing) is probably right when he suggests that this is not a matter for the Bank Act but for the Bankruptcy Act; and apparently that is the opinion of the officials in charge of the Bankruptcy Act. The purpose of that act is, of course, to make a disposition of the assets of the bankrupt firm to all those who have something against that firm. The preferred position to which my hon. friend refers is that the workers' wages are a first charge on the assets of a company which has gone into bankruptcy. It seems to me that a farmer's produce should be put upon the same basis. The Bankruptcy Act should be amended in that respect. Since I do not want to talk this measure out or prevent other members from expressing their point of view, I am merely going to say I support the resolution, and support the suggestion made that it be referred to the appropriate committee in the hope that some remedial amendments will be brought down to give justice to the producers.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take a few minutes to endorse this resolution, and congratulate the member who proposed it. I would like to add that I hope he will consent to referring the measure to the standing committee on banking and commerce, because it might be possible that in amending this act we may to some extent endanger the credit of the farmers, and that would be a bad thing. The farmer obtains 80709-502
Bank Act
credit under section 88, and that is an important factor with the banker when anyone is talking to him about a loan. I am very keen to see that the producer's credit is protected, and for that reason I am anxious to have the mover of this resolution refer it at the proper time to the committee on banking and commerce. Then these producers about which the member is so concerned will have their credit protected.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to make one of the shortest speeches in this debate. I merely say I am in favour of what the member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson) has in mind, and I think we all ought to support it.


Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: I should like to briefly endorse the motion proposed by the member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson). I want to point out to the house that apparently the canning factories, and other processing factories, are not financing on their own collateral but on collateral supplied by the primary producers of this country. It is difficult for a farmer or any other businessman to procure a loan on someone else's property, but that is what the canning factories are doing. It is not only the farmer's labour that goes into the produce the processors are handling, but there is the expense of fertilizer, machinery and possibly rent on the land. If bankruptcy proceedings are carried out, the farmer finds he has a very small interest in the assets. I merely want to mention again that, in this case, the farmer is providing not only the raw materials to enable the canning factories to operate, but he is also supplying a part of the capital on which those factories operate. It is about time a change was made.


Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to add my voice to the support for this amendment to the Bank Act which has been introduced by the member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson). I know of many cases in the constituency which I represent, as well as in the bordering constituencies of Wentworth, Lincoln and Welland, in which producers have lost anywhere from $100 up to $4,000 just because no provision was made in this act for them to share in the assets of a bankrupt company. None of us in this house would like to see any restriction placed on the operations of a company, but at the same time I see no valid reason why producers should not be placed in the same category as labour.
As has been pointed out labour can only lose two weeks' pay, but a producer can lose, in fact in many cases has lost, almost his entire income when a company has become

Bank Act
bankrupt. On previous occasions when a similar bill was under discussion, it has been stated that the bank would reduce credit to the producers if the act were amended in this way. Mr. Speaker, I do not see how this would possibly be so, because I do feel the banks could issue credit to the producer if this amendment were put into effect. I commend the member for Norfolk for introducing the subject. I know that in my own constituency a company went into bankruptcy some years ago, and the people in that small area lost $60,000. I know of another case, not too far distant, where the company went into bankruptcy and the producers lost $77,000. I do urge, Mr. Speaker, that every support be given this resolution.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: I should like to say a word on this subject. I want to congratulate the member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson), and I entirely endorse what the previous speakers have said. I hope the resolution goes through.


Mr. J. H. Blaclcmore (Lethbridge):: I also desire to place myself on record as being in support of this resolution.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: shall be quite brief. I want to express* my support of this resolution, and congratulate the mover on bringing the subject before the house. I think it is an important one. I have had some experience as a farmer, and I have had some experience as an inspector of bankruptcies under the Bankruptcy Act. I know of a good many cases where farmers have suffered because of the lack of the type of legislation suggested in the resolution. I urge general support for this measure.


Mr. T. J. Kickham (Kings):: I wish to congratulate the member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson), and to say that I am heartily in accord with the resolution.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, after this series of short speeches I want to make one almost as short. I, too, want to congratulate the member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson) on bringing this very important question before the house. As the house will realize, it involves a matter of priorities in the event of the bankruptcy of certain types of processors.


Gordon Graydon: Does the Bank Act come
into it?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes. Under the provisions of the Bank Act, a bank can take security under a warehouse receipt or section 88 of the Bank Act. The bank then has a claim against the proceeds from the merchandise on which security is taken, and it has precedence over
[Mr. Catherwood.3
all other claims except those of the wage earners who have been engaged in processing the goods.


Mr. McLure:: May I ask the minister who has* the right to hypothecate the farmer's produce? Does the farmer sign a waiver so that the canning processors can hypothecate to the banks?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, no. I am not familiar
with the canning business, but I presume the ordinary course is followed, and this applies not only to the manufacture of canned goods but refers to all types of manufacturing, whether it is clothing or anything else. Anyone who supplies materials to a manufacturer sells them to him under the ordinary contract of sale, and is subject to the ordinary rules that apply. As I say, under the Bank Act this* is a special type of security which has existed since the early days of confederation. It confers upon the bank a prior claim on the proceeds, ranking only after a restricted claim for the wages of the people who process the goods.
The resolution here suggests that another priority should be created, namely that of the farmer who has supplied the raw material that went into the manufactured goods. A very strong argument in equity can be established for some such priority. I think we should realize, however, that no bank is obliged to lend to processors of either farm products or any other form of product unless it believes it is going to get adequate security for the repayment of those loans. I had some practical experience in this sort of thing when I was practising law. I think there is a serious question whether, if the Bank Act were amended to provide for this priority additional to that for wages now, the banks would be willing to lend to processors the necessary amounts to enable the business to be carried on and the primary products to be processed. That is a matter of opinion.


Gordon Graydon: May I ask the minister-


Douglas Charles Abbott: I wonder if my hon. friend would allow me to continue. It is a little bit difficult to keep your sequence of thought when questions are asked. As the house knows, the Bank Act is subject to decennial revision. Speaking from memory, I think it will be up again for revision within the next two years. At that time it is given exhaustive consideration by the banking and commerce committee of this house. The banks appear before the committee; interested parties appear before it; and at that time all aspects of the Bank Act are carefully considered. My own view would be that this extremely important suggestion which, if it were adopted, might well, as I say, have far-reaching effects on (he ability of this type of enter-

prise and other types of enterprise to obtain needed credit, should be carefully considered when the Bank Act itself is under complete revision. Consequently, if this measure were pressed to any sort of vote now I would feel obliged to vote against it. I think I should be frank and say also that, taking into account the relative advantage of obtaining credit and not obtaining credit, I have serious doubts whether it would be desirable to insert such a provision in the act. However, I have an open mind on the matter, and I should be glad to hear a good' deal of detailed evidence as to the desirability of it or otherwise. But I do not think that the house should attempt to indicate at this time that it should necessarily be inserted in the Bank Act. If it met with the approval of the house, now that the matter has received this consideration, now that it has received the public attention which is inevitably drawn to a question of this kind when it is raised in the House of Commons, I think the desirable thing would be that the motion should be withdrawn, if everyone who wishes to express views on it has already done so. I think we can take it for granted that! when the Bank Act is under revision, it will receive fairly active consideration. I think it has been brought up before, perhaps not in this form, although I am not sure.


An hon. Member:: No.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Perhaps not. It certainly has not been brought up in this house before. As one who has had some considerable experience in seeing how a security of this kind is taken and how it works out, I want to impress on the house the view that we should not attempt to arrive at any firm opinion as to the complete desirability of such a move. I should be glad now to answer the question which the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) indicated he wished to ask.


Gordon Graydon: My hon. friend raised the question of the credit of these various processors and the possibility of its being affected by the change which has been suggested by the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Anderson). If there are processors that are for their own purposes pledging the credit of farmers' products and then going into bankruptcy, with the farmer being gypped out of his fair share, I think the credit of such people ought to be curtailed, and I do not think the banks should be encouraged to lend to them. That defeats the whole purpose of this thing, because some of these people may be conducting fly-by-night businesses. I would ask the minister if he does not think my suggestion has some merit.
Bank Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thank my hon. friend for asking the question. In principle, the point is much wider than just a question of processing tomatoes or peas, for example. This same principle applies to any manufacturer who secures raw materials from primary producers or anybody else. The essence of section 88 of the Bank Act and of section 86, under which warehouse receipts are taken, is this. Possession presumes title; and the manufacturer who has to pay wages and incur other expenses to process the goods and put them into a form in which they can be sold for distribution is under the Bank Act-and has been for a great many years-entitled to go to the bank which advances the loan on security of those goods, which ranks as I say ahead of every other claim with the exception of wage claims. That has been the law for a great many years. Perhaps it is time that it should be changed. I do not know. I have some doubts myself. But I merely say that it is an important question and one which I feel should receive full consideration by the banking and commerce committee of this house when the Bank Act is being reviewed in its entirety.


Major James William Coldwell: May I ask why? Why not have a preliminary study of it before the Bank Act is under review?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I suppose there would be no objection to having a preliminary study of it now, except this. It involves in essence the whole lending authority of the banks under the special powers in the Bank Act. It seems to me that as it is such an important part of the Bank Act, it should be looked at in connection with all the other powers the banks have.


Gordon Graydon: It has rather limited application as I see it. It has not the broad application that the minister indicates.


Douglas Charles Abbott: When he got before the banking and commerce committee, I think my hon. friend would find that there would be just about as many suppliers who might be against putting such a provision in the act as there would be for it. Admittedly there may be serious cases of what appears to be injustice. But the primary producer has a very real interest in seeing that the normal credit processes are available in order to enable the goods to be taken from the primary stage, through the manufacturing stage and put on the market. For every loss that is sustained through some financially unstable processor or loss sustained perhaps because of some more objectionable qualities he may have, I think that the primary producers- and they are the ones we are talking about today-get a great deal more benefit out

Bank Act
of the processor being able to get these credit facilities which might not otherwise be available to him than they lose on the average in the occasional bankruptcy. The record so far as bankruptcies are concerned over the past few years has been extremely good and I do not know of many cases in which anybody has sustained serious loss as a result of bankruptcy of the kind being discussed here today; not in recent years. In more difficult times it may be that that is the ease. But I feel that we should not attempt to consider this security provision in the Bank Act piecemeal because there would be bound to arise not only the question of this more limited credit but the much wider credit of the businesses in the country who rely on this type of security to enable them to obtain bank credit. I would hope that after this discussion-I have not been able to hear all of it but I have heard quite a bit of it-the mover would be prepared to withdraw the motion. If I should be minister of finance- and I hope devoutly that I will not be-when the Bank Act comes up for revision I will certainly see that this matter is brought before the banking and commerce committee at that time.


Mr. Cardiff:: If what the minister has just stated is true, then the bankers are using the farmers as guinea pigs to bolster up the processors in order to lend them money.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am not here to defend the banks or anybody else. This suggestion can only be justified if, on its merits, it gives the bank the type of security which it is entitled to get. It is lending the depositors' money and it is entitled to take the security which the law allows it to take. The banks will not lend money unless they feel the security they are getting is adequate to protect the loan. If we put other reservations in, it may well be that you might as well leave that type of security out of the Bank Act.


Gordon Graydon: There is one reservation in
it now.


Douglas Charles Abbott: There is a reservation in it
now, but that is a reservation which exists in every bankruptcy act and in every act respecting liquidation, namely the wage claim, the claim of the man who has worked on the thing and who has really no means of protecting himself. On the other hand, the farmer can refuse to deliver goods to the processor that he thinks is going to go bust.


James Arthur Ross: Six o'clock.


John Alpheus Charlton: By implication, the minister
is suggesting that the farmers should finance these companies.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Alpheus Charlton: The bank will not give
credit unless it has the farmer's produce; if the bank is not going to give credit, the business will not be operating and it is expected that the farmer should supply-


James Arthur Ross: Six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow is government day, and we will proceed with the following bills, the first three named of which will be proceeded with in the order indicated:	Bill No. 78, to amend the Farm
Improvement Loans Act, 1944; Bill No. 24, to confer certain emergency powers upon the governor in council; Bill No. 77, respecting the Department of Defence Production. Then, if we dispose of those bills, we will take up Bill No. 6, respecting the appointing of auditors for the national railways; Bill No. 76, to amend the Radio Act, 1938; Bill No. 5, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935. I do not know in what order we will proceed with the three last-mentioned bills.


Gordon Graydon: Better not contemplate it.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March I, 1951